Summary
In Cail v. Maciolek, 96 N.H. 445, the issue was whether the testimony of the plaintiff as to what he paid for repairs was admissible, and if so sufficient to sustain the verdict.
Summary of this case from Couture v. MarquisOpinion
No. 3991
Decided February 6, 1951
Testimony of the plaintiff as to what he paid for repairs to his motor vehicle after the collision was admissible and where uncontradicted it was sufficient to sustain the verdict.
CASE, for property damage caused by an automobile collision. Trial by Court resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff for $348.05. Admitting liability the defendant excepted to evidence as to what the plaintiff paid for repairs on the ground that expert testimony was necessary on this issue, and also to the denial of motions to dismiss the action and to set aside the verdict because there was no evidence to support it.
The plaintiff was a machinist and prior to this accident had done all his own automobile repairing for years. He testified as to the nature and extent of his damage and that immediately after the collision he took his car, which before the accident was in perfect running order, to an authorized A. L. A. garage for repairs which cost $348.05. Shortly thereafter as the car was not steering properly he drove it to the headquarters of the Bear Alignment Company for further repairs for which he paid $29.25. The defendant offered no contradictory testimony.
Transferred by Grimes, J. Other facts appear in the opinion.
Devine Millimet for the plaintiff.
Paul E. Nourie for the defendant.
The issues here are whether the testimony of the plaintiff as to what he paid for repairs to his automobile is admissible and if so whether it is sufficient to sustain the verdict. We believe the evidence is competent and warrants the verdict. The fair inference to be drawn from the uncontradicted testimony of the plaintiff was that these repairs were made necessary by the accident and that he considered them reasonable in amount. In similar situations other courts have held such evidence admissible and sufficient to sustain a verdict. Malinson v. Black, 83 Cal.App. (2d) 375; Mazer v. Levy, 260 N.Y. Supp. 823. We are in accord with this view and it follows that the order must be
Judgment on the verdict.
All concurred.